db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Myrna van Lunteren <m.v.lunte...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Eclipse ui plugin for 10.7.1.0
Date Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:31:18 GMT
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Rick Hillegas
<rick.hillegas@oracle.com> wrote:
> Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:26 AM, Rick Hillegas <rick.hillegas@oracle.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I need a volunteer to build the Eclipse ui plugin for Derby 10.7.1.0.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Rick
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I've been thinking about this - knew it was coming, of course.
>>
>> But neither the ui nor doc plugin source has changed in more than 2
>> years, so there really is no need to make a new plugin - it's just
>> going to be the same as the older one (except the files will have a
>> newer date...).
>> The *core* plugin is what has the derby jars in it, and thus needs to
>> be build for each release, and you took care of that.
>>
>> I propose that I will test the old ui/doc plugin with the new core
>> plugin, and if it works fine, we can just change the name of the zip
>> file, and then you sign it, of course, to give a stamp of approval for
>> 10.7.
>>
>
> Thanks, Myrna. This sounds like a great plan.
>
> If this artifact doesn't change much, would it make sense to check it into
> the Derby codeline? Then the release manager would just pick up the
> checked-in version when building a release. The release manager would just
> assume that Eclipse enthusiasts in the community had kept the checked-in
> version evergreen. I don't think there should be any licensing problems
> here, for the following reasons:
>
> o I cracked open this artifact. It already claims to be licensed under
> Apache v2.0. Individual pieces of text-based content in the artifact also
> have the Apache copyright header.
>
> o The remaining bits seem to be executable code. I assume that code was
> produced from some combination of Derby and Eclipse sources. According to
> this web page, the Apache license is compatible with compiled forms of code
> if the source itself was open-sourced under EPL, the Eclipse license:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
>
> Does this sound like a good approach for the future?
>
> Thanks,
> -Rick
>>
>> Let me know if you still want a new zip file, I volunteer to make one
>> if you want.
>>
>> Myrna
>>
>>
>
>
Well...The source for the ui and doc plugins is what lives in
(trunk/branch)/plugins/eclipse/org.apache.*... It's completely
contributed to the derby project, (see e.g. revision 178020) and thus
completely under Apache license.

It follows an (old?) eclipse API for plugins, so, it imports and
extends eclipse classes - similarly to how our junit framework imports
and extends junit classes. There is *no* eclipse source at all.

The code is not likely to change as the original contributors (Susan
and Rajesh) have not contributed to derby for a long time and short of
fixing glaring/horrible reproducible troubles (preferably if someone
else suggests a solution) I don't intend to do much myself.

So..sure, we could check in the ui/doc plugin zipfile somewhere...I
thought it was easy enough to access it from the saved location of the
older distributions, but I imagine it's easier to automate the signing
if the zip file lives also somewhere in the tree...

Myrna

Mime
View raw message